2. EU INSTITUTIONS
WHAT
(The Council of Minister, The European Parliament, The
European Commission; and The Economic and Social Committee,
The Committee of the Regions and Local Authorities, The European
Court of Justice, The Court of Auditors)
WHY
(Although EU MSs hold most of the decision making power,
the EU institutions can be compared with their governing
bodies, and we can study the EU ‘executive’, ‘legislative’ and
‘judicial’ functions)
HOW
(Treaties & Theories; Unanimity/QMV; Consultation/Co-
operation/Co-Decision)
WHEN
(Standstills and developments; Where next)
6. THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Executive- bureaucratic arm (27 members,
five-year term,
cabinets)
Overseeing the execution
of laws and policies
(harmonisation of laws, regulation and standards; ‘big, expensive and
powerful’?; regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations and
opinions)
7. THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Core of EU integration, but reduced
autonomy (EP)?
http://ec.europa.eu/index_en.htm#
http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/index_en.htm
(McCormick 2008: 69-93; Bache and George 2006: 229-259 and 261-275)
9. THE EUROPEAN
COURT OF JUSTICE
They ‘are chosen from among lawyers whose
independence is beyond doubt and who
possess the qualifications required for
appointment, in their respective countries, to the
highest judicial offices, …’.
The ECJ ensures that ‘the law is observed in the
interpretation of the Treaties … and the
provisions …’
Driver of integration? (Neofunct. vs. IG)
http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/Jo1_6308/curia
(Bache and George 2006: 317-332)
10. HOW
(2002/358/EC: Council Decision of 25 April 2002 concerning the approval
… of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change …)
‘The Commission is formally the sole
institution with the right to propose legislation’
Increasing democratic legitimacy of the EP
(and TEU IG pillars)
Council (unanimously) can amend the
proposal
(Bache and George 2006: 229-259)
11. HOW
Consultation (Commission to the Council; EP’s
opinion; still agr.; policy sectors such as asylum,
immigration, visas)
Co-operation (SEA, EP’s second reading, proposing
amendments – QMV, ‘common position’)
Co-Decision (Treaty of Amsterdam)
(Bache and George 2006: 229-259)
12. HOW
Co-Decision - First stages as in the Co-operation procedure,
up to the ‘common position’
If the EP rejects the ‘common
position’/Council does not approve the EP’s
amendments: a Conciliation Committee (reps of the
Council and EP, EC as facilitator) is set up – ‘mutually
acceptable compromise text’ (6 wks, QMV for the Council
and simple majority voting for the EP)
If agreed – EP and Council have 6 wks to
adopt it (Council by qualified majority, EP absolute
majority)
If ‘either institution fails to adopt the text’
– the proposal ‘is dead’
(Bache and George 2006: 229-259; Hix 2005: 99-110)
13. HOW AND WHEN: TREATIES &
Founding Treaties (Paris and Rome) - EC,
Council and EP, and consultative committees: ESC
Single European Act (SEA) (1986, 1987) - Council –
legal recognition, extended QMV (internal market), EP (co-operation,
assent procedure) / Internal market; new policy ares to the EEC Treaty,
EPC – legal recognition)
Treaty of the European Union (TEU) (Maastricht)
(1992, 1993) - Three pillars (EC pillar + 2 UG pillars) (consultative
committes: + CoR) EP (co-decision) / EMU – timetable, pillars two and
three – CFSP and JHA, new policy areas to the EEC Treaty)
14. HOW AND WHEN: TREATIES &
Treaty of Amsterdam (1997, 1999) - Council -
Extended legal base of QMV, EP (extended co-decision), created
enhanced cooperation procedure / CFPS strengthened, much of
JHA to EC pillar, new policy areas to EC pillar
Treaty of Nice (2001, 2003) - Change of nat. reps in
the institutions+Council: QMV system, extended legal base of
QMV, EP: small extension of co-decision, easier application of
cooperation procedure / marginal (JHA, EC)
(Bache and George 2006: 229-259; Nugent 2006: 129-146)
15. HOW AND WHEN: & THEORIES
Neofunctionalism: concept of spillover
Political spillover: European Commission as ‘the motor role’ mid-
1980s, extended QMC in the Council, ECJ
Also, the EU as ‘a series of different regimes’ (transnational actors)
Intergovernmentalism: IR realist tradition
Council: national gov’ts are channelled by the Council, but simply
‘forum of hard bargaining’
The European Commission (and other transnational actors) simply
respond to an agenda set by the govt’s (LIG, Moravcsik 1995)
Debate on the nature of the EU (supranational or intergovernmental)
and role of the European Commission (‘Servant’ or ‘Autonomous Actor’)
and Council?
(Bache and George 2006: 229-313, Nugent 2006: 558-567)
16. WHERE NEXT
EU 27 and The Treaty of Lisbon (wk 11)
Rules on the QMV; Presidency (Council)
Size of the European Commission (2/3 MSs)
and its appointment (majority vote of the Council, formally
appointed by the EP)
Extended enhanced co-operation (QMV – 55% MSs,
65% pop., and 35% pop. as block min.)
Extended co-decision (EP) – (enhanced coop. requires EP’s
approval)
National Parliaments
Police and Judicial Co-operation Pillar (ceased to be
an IG pillar)
(Bache and George 2006: 229-313
17. NEXT WEEK
From the history and theories, institutions
and policy-making to:
Policy-making process:
Internal policies (CAP and Regional
Policy, EMU and Social Policy)
External policies (CFSP and Commercial
policy, Enlargement)